document_title: Rivalries in the Australian Football League

question_text: who do richmond supporters consider their biggest rival

text: Victorian rivalries[edit]

text: Carlton v Collingwood[edit]

text: Argued by some to be the greatest and longest standing rivalry in the competition.[1] Two clubs in close proximity, fuelled by the rivalry between white (Carlton) and blue collar (Collingwood) suburbs; the rivalry is intensified because the teams have met in six memorable grand finals (Carlton winning five, Collingwood one), including Carlton's 44-point comeback in 1970, and the famous Harmes-Sheldon goal in 1979. Games between these two clubs regularly attract large crowds regardless of whether they are in finals contention or not.

text: Essendon v Carlton[edit]

text: As is the case with two successful sides in any competition, fans of each club love to defeat the other.[1] The two clubs share the record for the most premierships with 16. In recent times, Carlton famously upset the heavily favoured Essendon side by 1 point in the 1999 Preliminary Final. Essendon also led Carlton by 48 points deep into the second quarter of their Round 3 2007 match at the MCG, only to be overrun by Carlton in what would go down as their greatest ever come from behind victory; however, Essendon went on to defeat Carlton over the next 6 encounters, with Carlton finally breaking Essendon's winning streak with an emphatic 76 point win in Round 19, 2010.

text: Melbourne v Collingwood[edit]

text: A traditional white collar (Melbourne) v blue collar (Collingwood) rivalry, additionally fuelled by a narrow loss to Collingwood which stopped Melbourne from winning a fourth flag in a row in 1958. Half of Melbourne's twelve premierships came against Collingwood and the teams have met in seven grand finals, the most of any pairing. Since 2001, Melbourne has hosted Collingwood in an annual match at the MCG on the Queen's Birthday public holiday Monday in June.

text: Richmond v Collingwood[edit]

text: Arising from the fact that the two areas neighbour each other, Richmond and Collingwood were both highly successful in the late 1920s to the early 1930s; the clubs played against each other in five grand finals between 1919 and 1929 (Collingwood won in 1919, 1927, 1928 and 1929, while Richmond won in 1920). In the 1980 Grand Final, Richmond handed Collingwood an 81-point defeat, a record at the time.

text: Both clubs continue to draw large crowds to their meetings in each season, and the two were the subject of a 'recruiting war' throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with David Cloke, Geoff Raines, Brian Taylor, Wally Lovett, Phillip Walsh, Steven Roach, Gerald Betts, Neil Peart, Peter McCormack, Kevin Morris, Craig Stewart, Ross Brewer, Michael Lockman, Rod Oborne, Allan Edwards, John Annear, Noel Lovell and Bob Heard all exchanging clubs, as well as coach Tom Hafey (moving to Collingwood in 1977 following four flags at Punt Road).

text: Melees have been fought between the teams in two recent matches – Round 20, 2009, and Round 2, 2012 – with almost all players from both teams involved in the altercations.

text: Hawthorn v Essendon[edit]

text: The clubs contested the Grand Final in three consecutive seasons between 1983 and 1985, and the rough nature of these games and other between the clubs made them strong rivals during the 1980s. In the 1990s and right up until 2004 the rivalry became more quiet and uneventful with the exception of the 2001 preliminary final, which was the first time they met in a finals game since the 80's. More recently, the clubs have played two matches which saw bench-clearing brawls: the "Line in the Sand Match" in 2004, which resulted in four players being suspended and $70,700 in fines; and the final round of 2009, a match which would decide eighth place between the two teams, in which four players were suspended for a total of seven matches and $27,000 in fines being handed out. The latter brawl was famously sparked by Matthew Lloyd who applied a very hard bump, knocking out Brad Sewell, in what would be Lloyd's last game.

text: Richmond v Carlton[edit]

text: A rivalry based on geographical proximity and large supporter bases, the rivalry intensified as both clubs contested several grand finals between 1969 and 1982,[1] including the 1972 Grand Final where Richmond equalled the highest score ever in a grand final, only to be bettered by Carlton in the same match. The following year Richmond won the 1973 Grand Final in an even more physically bitter contest than in recent encounters between the two sides; Carlton got their revenge in 1982 by defeating Richmond in their last grand final appearance (as of 2017). In 2013, Carlton beat Richmond by 20 points in an elimination final, which was Richmond's first final since 2001, and third final since 1982.

text: Since 2008, the first game of each season played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground has been played between Carlton and Richmond on a Thursday night early in the season. A record crowd of 94,690 attended the 2013 Elimination Final between these two traditional rivals. It was the largest crowd for the 2013 season excluding the grand final, and the largest week one finals crowd since 1972.[3] Carlton has also received more finals losses (16) to Richmond than any other team. Richmond has also inflicted a total of four grand final losses on Carlton (1921, 1932, 1969 and 1973). Carlton has only beaten Richmond in two grand finals (1972 and 1982).[4]

text: Essendon v Collingwood[edit]

text: Since 1995, the rivalry has been defined by the Anzac Day clash, a match generally draws a crowd in excess of 90,000. The inaugural Anzac Day Clash in 1995 was famously drawn, the 2009 match was won by Essendon in the final minute with a goal from youngster David Zaharakis, and the 2012 match was won by Collingwood by one point after Jarryd Blair's game-winning goal was reviewed by video replay before being awarded.[5]

text: Essendon v Richmond[edit]

text: A rivalry born out of the fact that the two clubs are both part of the "Big 4" clubs in Melbourne as the highly supported teams. Since 2005, Essendon and Richmond have contested the annual Dreamtime at the 'G match, a celebration of Aboriginal players and their contribution to the league, typically held near the midway point of the season.

text: North Melbourne v Hawthorn[edit]

text: Both teams entered the VFL in the 1925 expansion, and were generally unsuccessful through the first few decades, but the two teams were both very strong through the 1970s, sparking a rivalry between the clubs. The clubs played three Grand Finals against each other in four years, with North Melbourne winning their first ever premiership in 1975 by 55 points, Hawthorn winning in 1976 by five goals, and Hawthorn winning in 1978 by three goals.

text: Hawthorn v Geelong[edit]

text: The rivalry between Hawthorn and Geelong is defined by two Grand Finals: those of 1989 and 2008. In the 1989 Grand Final, Geelong played the man, resulting in major injuries for several Hawks players, Mark Yeates knocking out Dermott Brereton at the opening bounce; Hawthorn controlled the game, leading by approximately 40 points for most of the match; in the last quarter, Geelong almost managed to come from behind to win, but fell short by six points. In 2008 Grand Final, Geelong was the heavily backed favourite and had lost only one match for the season, but Hawthorn upset Geelong by 26 points; Geelong won its next eleven matches against Hawthorn over the following five years, under a curse, which was dubbed the "Kennett curse" which was attributed to disrespectful comments made by Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett following the 2008 Grand Final. It was later revealed that after the 2008 grand final, Paul Chapman initiated a pact between other Geelong players to never lose to Hawthorn again. The curse was broken in a preliminary final in 2013, after Paul Chapman played his final match for Geelong the previous week.[6]

text: Essendon v North Melbourne[edit]

text: Essendon and North Melbourne were both strong in the latter part of the 1990s and early 2000s, and built a rivalry during that time. The defining moment of this rivalry came in Round 16 of 2001, when Essendon came from 69 points down in the second quarter to win by 12 points. Essendon and North Melbourne have played in one Grand Final, in 1950, which Essendon won by 38 points.

text: Collingwood v Geelong[edit]

text: Geelong won their first flag in 1925 over Collingwood, in 1930 Collingwood defeated Geelong in the grand final making it four flags in-a-row for the Pies. Geelong would later deny Collingwood three successive premierships in 1937, winning a famous grand final by 32 points.

text: The two sides played against each other in 6 finals between 1951 and 1955, including the 1952 Grand Final when Geelong easily beat Collingwood by 46 points. In 1953, Collingwood ended Geelong's record 23-game winning streak in the home and away season, and later defeated them by 12 points in the grand final, denying the Cats a third successive premiership.

text: Since 2007, the clubs have again both been at the top of the ladder and have met regularly in finals. Geelong won a memorable preliminary final by five points on their way to their first flag in 44 years. In 2008, Collingwood inflicted Geelong's only home-and-away loss, by a massive 86 points, but the teams did not meet in the finals. They would meet in preliminary finals in 2009 and 2010, each winning one en route to a premiership. They finally met in a Grand Final in 2011, which Geelong won by 38 points; Geelong inflicted Collingwood's only three losses for the 2011 season.[7]

text: Local derbies[edit]

text: There are four 'local derbies' in the AFL, with each of the clubs competing against their cross-town rivals at least twice every year.

text: West Coast v Fremantle[edit]

text: The two Western Australian-based teams contest the Western Derby. The West Coast Eagles won the first nine derbies, stretching from the inaugural derby in May 1995 until July 1999, but the Fremantle Dockers managed a seven match consecutive winning streak in derby matches, commencing in August 2007 and ending in May 2011. Of the 42 derbies played, West Coast holds a 22–20 advantage. The best performed player in each Western Derby is awarded the Ross Glendinning Medal.

text: Adelaide v Port Adelaide[edit]

text: The two Adelaide-based teams, the Adelaide Crows and the Port Adelaide Power, contest the Showdown. The first showdown occurred in April 1997, following the introduction of Port Adelaide into the league that year. Of the 42 Showdowns that have been contested, the head-to-head win count is 22-21 Adelaide's way. The best performed player in each showdown is awarded the Showdown Medal. Following the death of then coach of Adelaide Crows and assistant coach of Port Adelaide Power for 11 years, Phil Walsh, the Showdown medal was renamed after Walsh to commemorate his life, in the highest attended game between the two and the lowest ever margin. Adelaide Crows won 116 - 113.

text: Brisbane Lions v Gold Coast[edit]

text: The QClash is a derby between the only two Queensland clubs. The Gold Coast Suns won the first QClash, held in 2011, by eight points, but the Brisbane Lions has dominated the rivalry, leading the head-to-head tally 7-5. The best performed player in each QClash is awarded the Marcus Ashcroft Medal.

text: Sydney v Greater Western Sydney[edit]

text: The Sydney Derby is the newest local derby in the AFL, following the introduction of Greater Western Sydney in the 2012 AFL season. The best performed player in each derby is awarded the Brett Kirk Medal. The Sydney Swans have dominated most of the rivalry, holding an 8-3 advantage over the Giants and winning six of the eleven games by at least 30 points, however, the tide has turned in recent times, with the Giants winning the last two of the last three meetings including a historic qualifying final in 2016.[8]

text: Recent rivalries[edit]

text: West Coast v Sydney[edit]

text: A rivalry between Sydney and West Coast developed during the first decade of the 2000s, due to an unusually high number of close games, many in finals. The teams met each other six times between September 2005 and March 2007, including both Grand Finals and two Qualifying Finals; the final margins of these games were: 4, 4, 2, 1, 1 and 1, with Sydney winning the 2005 Grand Final, and West Coast winning the 2006 Grand Final. The sum of margins of 13 points across six consecutive meetings is by far the narrowest in VFL/AFL history, with 28 points (South Melbourne vs Melbourne, 28 points, 1898–1900) the nearest challenger.

text: Brisbane Lions v Collingwood[edit]

text: Angst between supporters of Collingwood and Brisbane had been caused by plenty of history between the two clubs, despite the Brisbane Lions having a relatively short existence as a merged club. Pre-merger Fitzroy was a neighbouring suburb to Collingwood, with the boundary being based on Smith Street,[9] along with the fact that Fitzroy and Collingwood topped the VFL/AFL premiership tally during the early existence of what was then the VFL competition. The Brisbane Bears also had a bit of beef with the Magpies as the Bears' number one draft pick Nathan Buckley famously defected to Collingwood after one season on the Bears list, citing that he wanted to win premierships and play finals footy.[10] The Bears also lost their final regular season match in their final season (1996) to the Magpies, costing the Bears the minor premiership that season.[11] However the rivalry between the Lions and the Magpies was properly ignited post-merger, it began in late 1999 when Collingwood played their last ever VFL/AFL game at their spiritual home ground, Victoria Park with the Lions emerging 42 point victors that day and consigning the Magpies to their second wooden spoon in their VFL/AFL history that day.[12] The rivalry between the two clubs went to the next level as the clubs played off in two consecutive Grand Finals in 2002 and 2003, with the Lions emerging victors on both occasions.[13][14] These grand final results further fueled the hatred that Collingwood supporters have towards the Brisbane Lions to this day, despite the Lions having a poor decade on the field after their golden era.

text: Western Bulldogs v Greater Western Sydney Giants[edit]

text: This Rivalry stems from the recent 2016 preliminary final between the Bulldogs and the Giants, in which the Bulldogs won by a goal and went on to win the Grand Final.[15] The Giants who were favorites to win the Grand Final were shocked as the Bulldogs had finished the home and away season at 7th on the ladder, and no team had ever won a Grand Final after finishing 7th. The Giants and Bulldogs are both from working class areas, and this adds further fuel to the flames.

text: Overall head to head[edit]

text: All clubs head to head win percentages. Games only include premiership matches in the VFL/AFL. Correct to the end of the 2015 AFL season.[16]

text:
Ade
Bri
Car
Col
Ess
Fre
GC
Gee
GWS
Haw
Mel
NM
PA
Ric
StK
Syd
WB
WCE

Ade

51.72
52.94
64.10
52.94
44.12
0.00
54.05
16.67
51.35
35.29
47.37
53.85
36.36
39.74
38.89
53.66
54.76

Bri
48.28

48.28
37.04
51.92
54.17
40.00
51.72
50.00
53.57
40.00
51.56
46.67
66.00
42.86
64.06
45.45
64.29

Car
47.06
51.72

49.40
48.76
58.62
20.00
45.83
60.00
37.42
43.27
36.18
55.36
41.40
24.19
41.44
37.32
48.78

Col
35.90
62.96
50.60

44.40
42.31
40.00
42.76
0.00
40.00
35.71
32.48
46.15
42.61
26.85
37.00
29.47
51.09

Ess
47.06
48.08
51.24
55.60

37.93
20.00
45.77
20.00
39.24
38.86
36.93
57.69
46.19
32.38
39.58
39.49
44.90

Fre
55.88
45.83
41.38
57.69
62.07

0.00
64.71
0.00
75.00
38.24
61.54
54.84
53.13
54.84
53.23
53.85
52.38

GC
100.00
60.00
80.00
60.00
80.00
100.00

83.33
42.86
100.00
57.14
50.00
83.33
40.00
39.57
100.00
71.43
92.86

Gee
45.95
48.28
54.17
57.24
54.23
35.29
16.67

0.00
45.89
40.09
39.94
32.76
45.77
39.57
44.70
36.13
51.04

GWS
83.33
50.00
40.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
57.14
100.00

75.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
60.00
87.50
80.00
100.00

Haw
48.65
46.43
62.58
60.00
60.76
25.00
0.00
54.11
25.00

46.84
44.71
58.06
55.56
47.37
43.75
48.41
54.35

Mel
64.71
60.00
56.73
64.29
61.14
61.76
42.86
59.91
50.00
53.16

46.82
62.07
55.91
43.03
54.41
46.89
68.09

NM
52.63
48.44
63.82
67.52
63.07
38.46
50.00
60.06
0.00
55.29
53.18

30.00
53.85
50.33
53.18
50.00
54.35

PA
46.15
53.33
44.64
53.85
42.31
45.16
16.67
67.24
20.00
41.94
37.93
70.00

40.38
38.46
73.08
48.00
37.04

Ric
63.64
34.00
58.60
57.39
53.81
46.88
60.00
54.23
0.00
44.44
44.09
46.15
59.62

39.17
44.76
47.68
60.00

StK
60.26
57.14
75.81
73.15
67.62
45.16
37.50
60.42
40.00
52.63
56.97
49.67
61.54
60.83

62.97
47.76
60.23

Syd
61.11
35.94
58.56
63.00
60.42
46.77
0.00
55.30
12.50
56.25
45.59
46.82
26.92
55.24
37.03

50.65
43.48

WB
46.34
54.55
62.68
70.53
60.51
46.15
28.57
63.87
20.00
51.59
53.11
50.00
52.00
52.32
52.24
49.35

65.63

WCE
45.24
35.71
51.22
48.91
55.10
47.62
7.14
48.96
0.00
45.65
31.91
45.65
62.96
40.00
39.77
56.52
34.38


document_title: A Bug's Life

question_text: who played the ladybug in a bug's life

question_tokens: who played the ladybug in a bug 's life

root

text: A Bug's Life

text: Plot[edit]

text: Ant Island is a colony of ants led by the Queen and her daughter, Princess Atta. Every season, they are forced to give food to a gang of marauding grasshoppers led by Hopper. One day, when Flik, an individualist and would-be inventor, inadvertently knocks the offering into a stream with his latest invention, a grain harvesting device, Hopper demands twice as much food as compensation. When Flik suggests in earnest that they seek help from other stronger bugs, the other ants see it as an opportunity to remove him and send him off.

tag: p

text: At the "bug city", which is a heap of trash under a trailer, Flik mistakes a troupe of Circus Bugs (who were recently dismissed by their greedy ringmaster, P.T. Flea) for the warrior bugs he seeks. The bugs, in turn, mistake Flik for a talent agent, and accept his offer to travel with him back to Ant Island. During a welcome ceremony upon their arrival, the Circus Bugs and Flik both discover their mutual misunderstandings. The Circus Bugs attempt to leave, but are attacked by a bird; while fleeing, they save Dot, Atta's younger sister, gaining the ants' respect in the process. At Flik's request, they continue the ruse of being "warriors", so the troupe can continue to enjoy the hospitality of the ants. Hearing that Hopper fears birds inspires Flik to create a false bird to scare away the grasshoppers. Meanwhile, Hopper tells his gang how greatly the ants outnumber them and worries that they will eventually rebel against them.

text: The ants finish constructing the fake bird, but during a celebration, P.T. Flea arrives, searching for his troupe, and he inadvertently reveals their secret. Outraged by Flik's deception, the ants exile him, and  desperately attempt to gather food for a new offering to the grasshoppers. However, when Hopper returns to discover the mediocre offering, he takes over the island, and demands the ants' winter food supply, planning to assassinate the Queen afterwards. Overhearing the plan, Dot informs Flik and the Circus Bugs, convincing them to return to Ant Island.

text: After rescuing the Queen, Flik deploys the bird; it initially fools the grasshoppers, but P.T. Flea, also mistaking it for a real bird, burns it, exposing it as a decoy. Hopper beats Flik in retaliation, saying that the ants are humble and lowly life forms who live to serve the grasshoppers. However, Flik responds that Hopper actually fears the colony, because he has always known what they are capable of, inspiring the ants and the Circus Bugs to fight back against the grasshoppers. The ants attempt to force Hopper out of Ant Island using P.T. Flea’s circus cannon, but it suddenly begins to rain. In the ensuing chaos, Hopper frees himself from the cannon, and abducts Flik. After the Circus Bugs fail to catch them, Atta rescues Flik. As Hopper pursues them, Flik lures him to the nest of the bird he, Dot, and the Circus Bugs encountered earlier. Thinking that the bird is another decoy, Hopper taunts it before discovering it is real, and is captured and fed to its chicks.

text: With their enemies gone, Flik has improved his inventions along with the quality of life for Ant Island, Atta professes her love for Flik, and they give Hopper's younger brother Molt, and a few ants to P.T. Flea as new members of his troupe. Atta and Dot respectively become the new queen and princess. The ants congratulate Flik as a hero, and bid a fond farewell to the circus troupe, who promise to return in the future.

text: Voice cast[edit]

text:
Dave Foley as Flik, an inventive, but mostly accident-prone, ant.
Kevin Spacey as Hopper, the misanthropic leader of the grasshopper gang.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta, the soon-to-be queen of the colony.
Hayden Panettiere as Dot, Princess Atta's younger sister and initially Flik's only friend in the ant colony.
Phyllis Diller as the Queen, the leader of the ant colony.
Richard Kind as Molt, Hopper's dimwitted younger brother.
David Hyde Pierce as Slim, a walking stick and Francis and Heimlich's friend.
Joe Ranft as Heimlich, a plump, German-accented caterpillar that longs to be a butterfly.
Denis Leary as Francis, a short-tempered ladybug that is constantly mistaken for a female.
Jonathan Harris as Manny, a praying mantis and magician in P.T. Flea's circus.
Madeline Kahn as Gypsy, a gypsy moth and Manny's beautiful wife and assistant.
Bonnie Hunt as Rosie, a black widow spider and Dim's tamer.
Michael McShane as Tuck and Roll, twin[5] pillbug brothers from Hungary.
John Ratzenberger as P.T. Flea, the owner of the circus.
Brad Garrett as Dim, a rhinoceros beetle that plays the "Ferocious Beast" in the circus act.
Roddy McDowall as Mr. Soil, the lead thespian.
Edie McClurg as Dr. Flora, the doctor of the ant colony.
Alex Rocco as Thorny, Princess Atta's assistant.
David Ossman as Cornelius, an elderly ant.

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: During the summer of 1994, Pixar's story department began turning their thoughts to their next film.[6] The storyline for A Bug's Life originated from a lunchtime conversation between John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Joe Ranft, the studio's head story team; other films such as Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo were also conceived at this lunch.[7] Lasseter and his story team had already been drawn to the idea of insects serving as characters. Like toys, insects were within the reach of computer animation back then, due to their relatively simple surfaces. Stanton and Ranft wondered whether they could find a starting point in Aesop's fable The Ant and the Grasshopper.[7] Walt Disney had produced his own version with a cheerier ending decades earlier in the 1934 short film The Grasshopper and the Ants. In addition, Walt Disney Feature Animation had considered producing a film in the late-1980s entitled Army Ants, that centered around a pacifist ant living in a militaristic colony, but this never fully materialized.[8]

text: As Stanton and Ranft discussed the adaptation, they rattled off scenarios and storylines springing from their premise.[7] Lasseter liked the idea and offered some suggestions. The concept simmered until early 1995, when the story team began work on the second film in earnest.[7] During an early test screening for Toy Story in San Rafael in June 1995, they pitched the film to Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Eisner thought the idea was fine and they submitted a treatment to Disney in early-July under the title Bugs.[7] Disney approved the treatment and gave notice on July 7 that it was exercising the option of a second film under the original 1991 agreement between Disney and Pixar.[9] Lasseter assigned the co-director job to Stanton; both worked well together and had similar sensibilities. Lasseter had realized that working on a computer-animated feature as a sole director was dangerous while the production of Toy Story was in process.[9] In addition, Lasseter believed that it would relieve stress and that the role would groom Stanton for having his own position as a lead director.[10]

text: Writing[edit]

text: In The Ant and the Grasshopper, a grasshopper squanders the spring and summer months on singing while the ants put food away for the winter; when winter comes, the hungry grasshopper begs the ants for food, but the ants turn him away.[7] Andrew Stanton and Joe Ranft hit on the notion that the grasshopper could just take the food.[7][11] After Stanton had completed a draft of the script, he came to doubt one of the story's main pillars – that the Circus Bugs that had come to the colony to cheat the ants would instead stay and fight.[10] He thought the Circus Bugs were unlikable characters as liars and that it was unrealistic for them to undergo a complete personality change. Also, no particularly good reason existed for Circus Bugs to stay with the ant colony during the second act.[12] Although the film was already far along, Stanton concluded that the story needed a different approach.[10]

text: Stanton took one of the early circus bug characters, Red the red ant, and changed him into the character Flik.[12] The Circus Bugs, no longer out to cheat the colony, would be embroiled in a comic misunderstanding as to why Flik was recruiting them. Lasseter agreed with this new approach, and comedy writers Donald McEnery and Bob Shaw spent a few months working on further polishing with Stanton.[13] The characters "Tuck and Roll" were inspired by a drawing that Stanton did of two bugs fighting when he was in the second grade.[11] Lasseter had come to envision the film as an epic in the tradition of David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia.[12][14]

text: Casting[edit]

text: The voice cast was heavy with television sitcom stars of the time: Flik was voiced by Dave Foley (from NewsRadio), Princess Atta was voiced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus (from Seinfeld), Molt was voiced by Richard Kind (from Spin City), Slim was voiced by David Hyde Pierce (from Frasier) and Dim was voiced by Brad Garrett (from Everybody Loves Raymond). Joe Ranft, member of Pixar's story team, played Heimlich the caterpillar at the suggestion of Lasseter's wife, Nancy, who had heard him playing the character on a scratch vocal track.[15]

text: The casting of Hopper, the film's villain, proved problematic. Lasseter's top choice was Robert De Niro, who repeatedly turned the part down, as did a succession of other actors.[15] Kevin Spacey met John Lasseter at the 1995 Academy Awards and Lasseter asked Spacey if he would be interested in doing the voice of Hopper. Spacey was delighted and signed on immediately.[12]

text: A Bug’s Life was the final film appearance of actor Roddy McDowell, who played Mr. Soil, before passing away shortly before the film’s theatrical release.[16]

text: Art design and animation[edit]

text: It was more difficult for animators during the production of A Bug's Life than that of Toy Story, as computers ran sluggishly due to the complexity of the character models. Lasseter and Stanton had two supervising animators to assist with directing and reviewing the animation: Rich Quade and Glenn McQueen. The first sequence to be animated and rendered was the circus sequence that culminated with P.T. Flea's "Flaming Wall of Death". Lasseter placed this scene first in the pipeline because he believed it was "less likely to change".[17] Lasseter thought it would be useful to look at a view of the world from an insect's perspective. Two technicians obliged by creating a miniature video camera on Lego wheels, which they dubbed as the "Bugcam".[10][18] Fastened to the end of a stick, the Bugcam could roll through grass and other terrain and send back an insect's-eye outlook. Lasseter was intrigued by the way grass, leaves, and flower petals formed a translucent canopy, as if the insects were living under a stained-glass ceiling. The team also later sought inspiration from Microcosmos (1996), a French documentary on love and violence in the insect world.[10]

text: The transition from treatment to storyboards took on an extra layer of complexity due to the profusion of storylines. Where Toy Story focused heavily on Woody and Buzz, with the other toys serving mostly as sidekicks, A Bug's Life required in-depth storytelling for several major groups of characters.[13] Character design also presented a new challenge, in that the designers had to make ants appear likable. Although the animators and the art department studied insects more closely, natural realism would give way to the film's larger needs.[14] The team took out mandibles and designed the ants to stand upright, replacing their normal six legs with two arms and two legs. The grasshoppers, in contrast, received a pair of extra appendages to appear less attractive.[14] The story's scale also required software engineers to accommodate new demands. Among these was the need to handle shots with crowds of ants.[14] The film would include more than 400 such shots in the ant colony, some with as many as 800. It was impractical for animators to control them individually, but neither could the ants remain static for even a moment without appearing lifeless, or move identically. Bill Reeves, one of the film's two supervising technical directors, dealt with the quandary by leading the development of software for autonomous ants.[14] The animators would only animate four or five groups of about eight individual "universal ants". Each one of these "universal ants" would later be randomly distributed throughout the digital set. The program also allowed each ant to be automatically modified in subtle ways (e.g. different color of eye or skin, different heights, different weights, etc.). This ensured that no two ants were the same.[18] It was partly based on Reeves's invention of particle systems a decade and a half earlier, which had let animators use masses of self-guided particles to create effects like swirling dust and snow.[15]

text: The animators also employed subsurface scattering—developed by Pixar co-founder Edwin Catmull during his graduate student days at the University of Utah in the 1970s—to render surfaces in a more lifelike way. This would be the first time that subsurface scattering would be used in a Pixar film, and a small team at Pixar worked out the practical problems that kept it from working in animation. Catmull asked for a short film to test and showcase subsurface scattering and the result, Geri's Game (1997), was attached alongside A Bug's Life in its theatrical release.[19]

text: Controversy[edit]

text: During the production of A Bug's Life, a public feud erupted between DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Pixar's Steve Jobs and John Lasseter. Katzenberg, former chairman of Disney's film division, had left the company in a bitter feud with CEO Michael Eisner. In response, he formed DreamWorks SKG with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen and planned to rival Disney in animation.[20] After DreamWorks' acquisition of Pacific Data Images (PDI)—long Pixar's contemporary in computer animation—Lasseter and others at Pixar were dismayed to learn from the trade papers that PDI's first project at DreamWorks would be another ant film, to be called Antz.[21] By this time, Pixar's project was well-known within the animation community.[22] Both Antz and A Bug's Life center on a young male, a drone with oddball tendencies that struggles to win a princess's hand by saving their society. Whereas A Bug's Life relied chiefly on visual gags, Antz was more verbal and revolved more around satire. The script of Antz was also heavy with adult references, whereas Pixar's film was more accessible to children.[23]

text: It was clear that Lasseter and Jobs believed that the idea was stolen by Katzenberg.[8][20] Katzenberg had stayed in touch with Lasseter after the acrimonious Disney split, often calling to check up. In October 1995, when Lasseter was overseeing postproduction work on Toy Story at the Universal lot's Technicolor facility in Universal City, where DreamWorks was also located, he called Katzenberg and dropped by with Stanton.[20][24] When Katzenberg asked what they were doing next, Lasseter described what would become A Bug's Life in detail. Lasseter respected Katzenberg's judgment and felt comfortable using him as a sounding board for creative ideas.[24] Lasseter had high hopes for Toy Story, and he was telling friends throughout the tight-knit computer-animation business to get cracking on their own films. "If this hits, it's going to be like space movies after Star Wars" for computer animation companies, he told various friends.[8] "I should have been wary," Lasseter later recalled. "Jeffrey kept asking questions about when it would be released."[20]

text: When the trades indicated production on Antz, Lasseter, feeling betrayed, called Katzenberg and asked him bluntly if it were true, who in turn asked him where he had heard the rumor. Lasseter asked again, and Katzenberg admitted it was true. Lasseter raised his voice and would not believe Katzenberg's story that a development director had pitched him the idea long ago. Katzenberg claimed Antz came from a 1991 story pitch by Tim Johnson that was related to Katzenberg in October 1994.[8] Another source gives Nina Jacobson, one of Katzenberg's executives, as the person responsible for the Antz pitch.[22] Lasseter, who normally did not use profane language, cursed at Katzenberg and hung up the phone.[25] Lasseter recalled that Katzenberg began explaining that Disney was "out to get him" and that he realized that he was just cannon fodder in Katzenberg's fight with Disney.[8][22] In truth, Katzenberg was the victim of a conspiracy: Eisner had decided not to pay him his contract-required bonus, convincing Disney's board not to give him anything.[22] Katzenberg was further angered by the fact that Eisner scheduled Bugs to open the same week as The Prince of Egypt, which was then intended to be DreamWorks' first animated release.[22][25] Lasseter grimly relayed the news to Pixar employees but kept morale high. Privately, Lasseter told other Pixar executives that he and Stanton felt terribly let down by Katzenberg.[22]

text: Katzenberg moved the opening of Antz from spring 1999 to October 1998 to compete with Pixar's release.[22][26] David Price writes in his 2008 book The Pixar Touch that a rumor, "never confirmed", was that Katzenberg had given PDI "rich financial incentives to induce them to whatever it would take to have Antz ready first, despite Pixar's head start".[22][25] Jobs was furious and called Katzenberg and began yelling. Katzenberg made an offer: He would delay production of Antz if Jobs and Disney would move A Bug’s Life so that it did not compete with The Prince of Egypt. Jobs believed it "a blatant extortion attempt" and would not go for it, explaining that there was nothing he could do to convince Disney to change the date.[8][25] Katzenberg casually responded that Jobs himself had taught him how to conduct similar business long ago, explaining that Jobs had come to Pixar's rescue by making the deal for Toy Story, as Pixar was near bankruptcy at that time.[15] "I was the one guy there for you back then, and now you're allowing them to use you to screw me," Katzenberg said.[25] He suggested that if Jobs wanted to, he could simply slow down production on A Bug's Life without telling Disney. If he did, Katzenberg said, he would put Antz on hold.[8] Lasseter also claimed Katzenberg had phoned him with the proposition, but Katzenberg denied these charges later.[17]

text: As the release dates for both films approached, Disney executives concluded that Pixar should keep silent on the DreamWorks battle. Regardless, Lasseter publicly dismissed Antz as a "schlock version" of A Bug's Life.[19] Lasseter, who claimed to have never seen Antz, told others that if DreamWorks and PDI had made the film about anything other than insects, he would have closed Pixar for the day so the entire company could go see it.[8][23] Jobs and Katzenberg would not back down and the rivaling ant films provoked a press frenzy. "The bad guys rarely win," Jobs told the Los Angeles Times. In response, DreamWorks' head of marketing Terry Press suggested, "Steve Jobs should take a pill."[25] Despite the successful box office performance of both Antz and A Bug's Life, tensions would remain high between Jobs and Katzenberg for many years. According to Jobs, Katzenberg came to Jobs after the success of Shrek (2001) and insisted he had never heard the pitch for A Bug's Life, reasoning that his settlement with Disney would have given him a share of the profits if that were so.[27] Although the contention left all parties estranged, Pixar and PDI employees kept up the old friendships that had arisen from spending a long time together in computer animation.[17]

text: Music[edit]

text:
A Bug's Life: An Original Walt Disney Records SoundtrackSoundtrack album by Randy NewmanReleased
October 27, 1998Recorded
1998Genre
ScoreLength
47:32Label
Walt DisneyRandy Newman chronology

Michael(1996)

A Bug's Life: An Original Walt Disney Records Soundtrack(1998)

Pleasantville(1998)

Pixar soundtrack chronology

Toy Story(1995)

A Bug's Life(1998)

Toy Story 2(1999)

tag: table

text: The film's score was composed and conducted by Randy Newman. The soundtrack album was produced and released on October 27, 1998, by Walt Disney Records. The album's first track is a song called "The Time of Your Life" written and performed by Newman, while all the other 19 tracks are orchestral cues. The album is no longer manufactured into physical media, but is available for purchase on iTunes. The time duration is 47 minutes and 32 seconds.[28] Out of five stars, Allmusic,[29] Empire Online,[30] and Film Tracks rated the album three stars.[31] Movie Wave rated it four and a half.[32] The score won the Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Composition.[28]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes the film has a rating of 92%, based on 85 reviews, with an average rating of 7.9/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "A Bug's Life is a rousing adventure that blends animated thrills with witty dialogue and memorable characters – and another smashing early success for Pixar."[33] Another review aggregator, Metacritic, gave the film a score of 77 out of 100, based on 23 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[34]

text: Todd McCarthy of Variety gave the film a positive review, saying "Lasseter and Pixar broke new technical and aesthetic ground in the animation field with Toy Story, and here they surpass it in both scope and complexity of movement while telling a story that overlaps Antz in numerous ways."[35] James Berardinelli of ReelViews gave the film three and a half stars out of four, saying "A Bug's Life, like Toy Story, develops protagonists we can root for, and places them in the midst of a fast-moving, energetic adventure."[36] Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three and a half stars out of four, saying "Will A Bug's Life suffer by coming out so soon after Antz? Not any more than one thriller hurts the chances for the next one. Antz may even help business for A Bug's Life by demonstrating how many dramatic and comedic possibilities can be found in an anthill."[37] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times gave the film four out of five stars, saying "What A Bug's Life demonstrates is that when it comes to bugs, the most fun ones to hang out with hang exclusively with the gang at Pixar."[38] Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film four out of four stars, saying "A Bug's Life is one of the great movies – a triumph of storytelling and character development, and a whole new ballgame for computer animation. Pixar Animation Studios has raised the genre to an astonishing new level".[39]

text: Richard Corliss of Time gave the film a positive review, saying "The plot matures handsomely; the characters neatly converge and combust; the gags pay off with emotional resonance."[40] Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B, saying "A Bug's Life may be the single most amazing film I've ever seen that I couldn't fall in love with."[41] Paul Clinton of CNN gave the film a positive review, saying "A Bug's Life is a perfect movie for the holidays. It contains a great upbeat message ... it's wonderful to look at ... it's wildly inventive ... and it's entertaining for both adults and kids."[42] Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune gave the film three and a half stars out of four, and compared the movie to "Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (with a little of another art-film legend, Federico Fellini, tossed in)." where "As in Samurai, the colony here is plagued every year by the arrival of bandits."[43] On the contrary, Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post gave the film a negative review, saying "Clever as it is, the film lacks charm. One problem: too many bugs. Second, bigger world for two purposes: to feed birds and to irk humans."[44]

text: Box office[edit]

text: A Bug's Life grossed approximately $33,258,052 on its opening weekend, ranking number 1 for that weekend.[45] It managed to retain its number 1 spot for two weeks.[46][47] The film grossed $162.8 million in its United States theatrical run, covering its estimated production costs of $120 million. The film made $200,460,294 in foreign countries, pushing its worldwide gross to $363.3 million, surpassing the competition from DreamWorks Animation's Antz.[2]

text: Awards and honors[edit]

text: A Bug's Life won a number of awards and numerous nominations. The film won the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards for Best Animated Film (tied with The Prince of Egypt) and Best Family Film, the Satellite Award for Best Animated Film and the Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Composition by Randy Newman. It was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Musical or Comedy Score, the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score and the BAFTA Award for Best Achievement in Special Visual Effects.[48] In 2008, the American Film Institute nominated this film for its Top 10 Animation Films list.[49]

text: Home media[edit]

text: A Bug's Life was the first ever home video release to be entirely created using a digital transfer, with every single frame of animation being readded from the film’s computer data as opposed to the standard analog film-to-videotape transfer process. This allowed for the film’s DVD release to retain its original 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format which it was presented with in movie theaters.[50] The DVD was released on April 20, 1999 alongside a VHS release which was presented in a standard 1.33:1 “fullscreen” format. The movie’s fullscreen transfer was performed by entirely “reframing” the film shot by shot; more than half of the film’s footage was modified by Pixar animators in order for them to fit within the film’s aspect ratio, with several characters and objects being moved closer together in order to avoid being cut out of frame.[50] The film’s VHS release was the best-selling VHS in the United Kingdom, with 1.76 million units sold by the end of the year.[51]

text: On August 1, 2000, the film was rereleased on VHS and DVD under the Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection banner.[52] On May 20, 2003, another DVD was released as a 2-disc Collector's Edition. This DVD was fully remastered and has substantial bonus features.[53][54] On May 19, 2009, the film was released on Blu-ray.[55]

text: Media and merchandise[edit]

text: Attached short film[edit]

text: The film's theatrical and video releases include Geri's Game, an Academy Award winning Pixar short made in 1997, a year before this film was released.[56]

text: Video game[edit]

text: A game, based on the film, was developed by Traveller's Tales and Tiertex Design Studios and released by Sony Computer Entertainment, Disney Interactive, THQ and Activision for various systems. The game's storyline was similar to the film's, with a few changes. However, unlike the film, the game received mixed to negative reviews.[57] Aggregating review website GameRankings gave the Nintendo 64 version 54.40%,[58] the PlayStation version 51.90%[59] and the Game Boy Color version 36.63%.[60] GameSpot gave the PlayStation version a 2.7/10, concluding that it was "obvious that Disney was more interested in producing a $40 advertisement for its movie than in developing a playable game."[61] IGN gave the Nintendo 64 version a 6.8/10, praising the presentation and sound by stating "It was upbeat, cheery look and feel very much like the movie of the same name with cheery, happy tunes and strong sound effects but again criticised the gameplay by saying the controls were sluggish with stuttering framerate and tired gameplay mechanics".[62] while they gave the PlayStation version a 4/10, criticizing the gameplay as slow and awkward but praising the presentation as cinematic.[63]

text: Theme park attractions[edit]

text: A Bug's Land is a section of Disney California Adventure that is inspired by A Bug's Life. One of the main attractions was the 3D show It's Tough to Be a Bug! which is also in Disney's Animal Kingdom. The Disney California Adventure nighttime show World of Color features a segment that includes Heimlich, the caterpillar from the film.[64]


document_title: Learning styles

question_text: a model of learning style impacted by sound and light is called

text: Learning styles

text: Overview of models[edit]

text: There are many different learning styles models; one literature review identified 71 different models.[1]:166–168 Only a few models are described below.

text: David Kolb's model[edit]

text: David A. Kolb's model is based on his experiential learning model, as explained in his book Experiential Learning.[8] Kolb's model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches toward transforming experience: Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation.[8]:145 According to Kolb's model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands; they form a learning cycle from experience to observation to conceptualization to experimentation and back to experience. In order for learning to be effective, Kolb postulated, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, they may tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach, leading them to prefer one of the following four learning styles:[8]:127[9]

text:
Accommodator = Concrete Experience + Active Experiment: strong in "hands-on" practical doing (e.g., physical therapists)
Converger = Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment: strong in practical "hands-on" application of theories (e.g., engineers)
Diverger = Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation: strong in imaginative ability and discussion (e.g., social workers)
Assimilator = Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation: strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., philosophers)

tag: ol

text: Kolb's model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual's learning style. According to this model, individuals may exhibit a preference for one of the four styles — Accommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilating — depending on their approach to learning in Kolb's experiential learning model.[8]

text: Although Kolb's model is widely accepted with substantial empirical support and has been revised over the years, a 2013 study sheds light on the model's pitfalls, and suggests that the Learning Style Inventory still "possesses serious weaknesses", which in turn limits the tool's usefulness and validity in measuring and determining a person's dominant learning styles.[10]:44

text: Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model[edit]

text: Peter Honey and Alan Mumford adapted Kolb's experiential learning model. First, they renamed the stages in the learning cycle to accord with managerial experiences: having an experience, reviewing the experience, concluding from the experience, and planning the next steps.[11]:121–122 Second, they aligned these stages to four learning styles named:[11]:122–124

text:
Activist
Reflector
Theorist
Pragmatist

text: These four learning styles are assumed to be acquired preferences that are adaptable, either at will or through changed circumstances, rather than being fixed personality characteristics. Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)[12] is a self-development tool and differs from Kolb's Learning Style Inventory by inviting managers to complete a checklist of work-related behaviours without directly asking managers how they learn. Having completed the self-assessment, managers are encouraged to focus on strengthening underutilised styles in order to become better equipped to learn from a wide range of everyday experiences.

text: A MORI survey commissioned by The Campaign for Learning in 1999 found the Honey and Mumford LSQ to be the most widely used system for assessing preferred learning styles in the local government sector in the UK.[citation needed]

text: Learning modalities[edit]

text: Walter Burke Barbe and colleagues proposed three learning modalities (often identified by the acronym VAK):[13]

text:
Visualising modality
Auditory modality
Kinesthetic modality

text:
Descriptions of learning modalities

Visual
Kinesthetic/tactile
Auditory

Picture
Gestures
Listening

Shape
Body movements
Rhythms

Sculpture
Object manipulation
Tone

Paintings
Positioning
Chants

text: Barbe and colleagues reported that learning modality strengths can occur independently or in combination (although the most frequent modality strengths, according to their research, are visual or mixed), they can change over time, and they become integrated with age.[14] They also pointed out that learning modality strengths are different from preferences; a person's self-reported modality preference may not correspond to their empirically measured modality strength.[14]:378 This disconnect between strengths and preferences was confirmed by a subsequent study.[15] Nevertheless, some scholars have criticized the VAK model.[16][17] Psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues have argued that much use of the VAK model is nothing more than pseudoscience or a psychological urban legend.[18]

text: Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK model[edit]

text: Neil Fleming's VARK model[19] expanded upon earlier notions of sensory modalities such as the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues[13] and the representational systems (VAKOG) in neuro-linguistic programming.[20] The four sensory modalities in Fleming's model are:[21]

text:
Visual learning
Auditory learning
Read/write learning
Kinesthetic learning

text: Fleming claimed that visual learners have a preference for seeing (visual aids that represent ideas using methods other than words, such as graphs, charts, diagrams, symbols, etc.). Subsequent neuroimaging research has suggested that visual learners convert words into images in the brain and vice versa,[22] but some psychologists have argued that this "is not an instance of learning styles, rather, it is an instance of ability appearing as a style".[2]:268 Likewise, Fleming claimed that auditory learners best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.), and tactile/kinesthetic learners prefer to learn via experience—moving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world, science projects, experiments, etc.). Students can use the model to identify their preferred learning style and, it is claimed, maximize their learning by focusing on the mode that benefits them the most. Fleming's model also posits two types of multimodality.[21]

text: Anthony Gregorc's model[edit]

text: Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler organized a model describing different learning styles rooted in the way individuals acquire and process information differently.[23] This model posits that an individual's perceptual abilities are the foundation of his or her specific learning strengths, or learning styles.[24]

text: In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: concrete and abstract, and two ordering abilities: random and sequential.[24] Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the five senses, while abstract perceptions involve the understanding of ideas, qualities, and concepts which cannot be seen. In regard to the two ordering abilities, sequential ordering involves the organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of information in chunks and in no specific order.[24] The model posits that both of the perceptual qualities and both of the ordering abilities are present in each individual, but some qualities and ordering abilities are more dominant within certain individuals.[24]

text: There are four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering abilities based on dominance: concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete random. The model posits that individuals with different combinations learn in different ways—they have different strengths, different things make sense to them, different things are difficult for them, and they ask different questions throughout the learning process.[24]

text: The validity of Gregorc's model has been questioned by Thomas Reio and Albert Wiswell following experimental trials.[25] Gregorc argues that his critics have "scientifically-limited views" and that they wrongly repudiate the "mystical elements" of "the spirit" that can only be discerned by a "subtle human instrument".[26]

text: Cognitive approaches[edit]

text: Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann, in 1974, formulated the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale.[27] It was developed to analyze the attitudes of students and how they approach learning. The test was originally designed to provide teachers with insight on how to approach instructional plans for college students.[28] Grasha's background was in cognitive processes and coping techniques. Unlike some models of cognitive styles which are relatively nonjudgmental, Grasha and Riechmann distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles. The names of Grasha and Riechmann's learning styles are:

text:
avoidant
participative
competitive
collaborative
dependent
independent

text: Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify real ability, Robert Sternberg listed various cognitive dimensions in his book Thinking Styles.[29] Several other models are also often used when researching cognitive styles; some of these models are described in books that Sternberg co-edited, such as Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles.[30][31][32]

text: NASSP model[edit]

text: In the 1980s, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) formed a task force to study learning styles.[33] The task force defined three broad categories of style—cognitive, affective, and physiological—and 31 variables, including the perceptual strengths and preferences from the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues,[14] but also many other variables such as need for structure, types of motivation, time of day preferences, and so on.[33]:141–143 They defined a learning style as "a gestalt—not an amalgam of related characteristics but greater than any of its parts. It is a composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human development and reflected in learner behavior."[33]:141

text:
Cognitive styles are preferred ways of perception, organization and retention.
Affective styles represent the motivational dimensions of the learning personality; each learner has a personal motivational approach.
Physiological styles are bodily states or predispositions, including sex-related differences, health and nutrition, and reaction to physical surroundings, such as preferences for levels of light, sound, and temperature.[33]:141

text: According to the NASSP task force, styles are hypothetical constructs that help to explain the learning (and teaching) process. They posited that one can recognize the learning style of an individual student by observing his or her behavior.[33]:138 Learning has taken place only when one observes a relatively stable change in learner behavior resulting from what has been experienced.

text: Assessment methods[edit]

text: Learning Style Inventory[edit]

text: The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is connected with David A. Kolb's model and is used to determine a student's learning style.[9] Previous versions of the LSI have been criticized for problems with validity, reliability, and other issues.[10][34][35] Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four learning styles of previous versions with nine new learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing.[36] The LSI is intended to help employees or students "understand how their learning style impacts upon problem solving, teamwork, handling conflict, communication and career choice; develop more learning flexibility; find out why teams work well—or badly—together; strengthen their overall learning."[36]

text: A completely different Learning Styles Inventory is associated with a binary division of learning styles, developed by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman.[37] In Felder and Silverman's model, learning styles are a balance between pairs of extremes such as: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Verbal/Visual, and Sequential/Global. Students receive four scores describing these balances.[38] Like the LSI mentioned above, this inventory provides overviews and synopses for teachers.

text: NASSP Learning Style Profile[edit]

text: The NASSP Learning Style Profile (LSP) is a second-generation instrument for the diagnosis of student cognitive styles, perceptual responses, and study and instructional preferences.[39] The LSP is a diagnostic tool intended as the basis for comprehensive style assessment with students in the sixth to twelfth grades. It was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals research department in conjunction with a national task force of learning style experts. The Profile was developed in four phases with initial work undertaken at the University of Vermont (cognitive elements), Ohio State University (affective elements), and St. John's University (physiological/environmental elements). Rigid validation and normative studies were conducted using factor analytic methods to ensure strong construct validity and subscale independence.

text: The LSP contains 23 scales representing four higher order factors: cognitive styles, perceptual responses, study preferences and instructional preferences (the affective and physiological elements). The LSP scales are: analytic skill, spatial skill, discrimination skill, categorizing skill, sequential processing skill, simultaneous processing skill, memory skill, perceptual response: visual, perceptual response: auditory, perceptual response: emotive, persistence orientation, verbal risk orientation, verbal-spatial preference, manipulative preference, study time preference: early morning, study time preference: late morning, study time preference: afternoon, study time preference: evening, grouping preference, posture preference, mobility preference, sound preference, lighting preference, temperature preference.[39]

text: Other methods[edit]

text: Other methods (usually questionnaires) used to identify learning styles include Neil Fleming's VARK Questionnaire[19] and Jackson's Learning Styles Profiler.[1]:56–59 Many other tests have gathered popularity and various levels of credibility among students and teachers.

text: In the classroom[edit]

text: Various researchers have attempted to hypothesize ways in which learning style theory can be used in the classroom. Two such scholars are Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, who build upon a learning modalities approach.[1]:20–35[40]

text: Although learning styles will inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn say that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques, and the development of "contract activity packages".[40] Redesigning the classroom involves locating dividers that can be used to arrange the room creatively (such as having different learning stations and instructional areas), clearing the floor area, and incorporating student thoughts and ideas into the design of the classroom.[40]

text: Dunn and Dunn's "contract activity packages" are educational plans that use: a clear statement of the learning need; multisensory resources (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic); activities through which the newly mastered information can be used creatively; the sharing of creative projects within small groups; at least three small-group techniques; a pre-test, a self-test, and a post-test.[40]

text: Another scholar who believes that learning styles should have an effect on the classroom is Marilee Sprenger in Differentiation through Learning Styles and Memory.[41] She bases her work on three premises:

text:
Teachers can be learners, and learners teachers. We are all both.
Everyone can learn under the right circumstances.
Learning is fun! Make it appealing.[41][page needed]

text: Sprenger details how to teach in visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic ways. Methods for visual learners include ensuring that students can see words written, using pictures, and drawing timelines for events.[41][page needed] Methods for auditory learners include repeating words aloud, small-group discussion, debates, listening to books on tape, oral reports, and oral interpretation.[41][page needed] Methods for tactile/kinesthetic learners include hands-on activities (experiments, etc.), projects, frequent breaks to allow movement, visual aids, role play, and field trips.[41][page needed] By using a variety of teaching methods from each of these categories, teachers cater to different learning styles at once, and improve learning by challenging students to learn in different ways.

text: James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins have incorporated learning style assessment as a basic component in their "personalized instruction" model of schooling.[42] Six basic elements constitute the culture and context of personalized instruction. The cultural components—teacher role, student learning characteristics, and collegial relationships—establish the foundation of personalization and ensure that the school prizes a caring and collaborative environment. The contextual factors—interactivity, flexible scheduling, and authentic assessment—establish the structure of personalization.[42][page needed]

text: According to Keefe and Jenkins, cognitive and learning style analysis have a special role in the process of personalizing instruction. The assessment of student learning style, more than any other element except the teacher role, establishes the foundation for a personalized approach to schooling: for student advisement and placement, for appropriate retraining of student cognitive skills, for adaptive instructional strategy, and for the authentic evaluation of learning.[42][page needed] Some learners respond best in instructional environments based on an analysis of their perceptual and environmental style preferences: most individualized and personalized teaching methods reflect this point of view. Other learners, however, need help to function successfully in any learning environment. If a youngster cannot cope under conventional instruction, enhancing his cognitive skills may make successful achievement possible.[42][page needed]

text: Many of the student learning problems that learning style diagnosis attempts to solve relate directly to elements of the human information processing system. Processes such as attention, perception and memory, and operations such as integration and retrieval of information are internal to the system. Any hope for improving student learning necessarily involves an understanding and application of information processing theory. Learning style assessment can provide a window to understanding and managing this process.[42][page needed]

text: At least one study evaluating teaching styles and learning styles, however, has found that congruent groups have no significant differences in achievement from incongruent groups.[43] Furthermore, learning style in this study varied by demography, specifically by age, suggesting a change in learning style as one gets older and acquires more experience. While significant age differences did occur, as well as no experimental manipulation of classroom assignment, the findings do call into question the aim of congruent teaching–learning styles in the classroom.[1]:122

text: Educational researchers Eileen Carnell and Caroline Lodge concluded that learning styles are not fixed and that they are dependent on circumstance, purpose and conditions.[44]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Learning style theories have been criticized by many scholars and researchers. Some psychologists and neuroscientists have questioned the scientific basis for separating out students based on learning style. According to Susan Greenfield the practice is "nonsense" from a neuroscientific point of view: "Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain."[45]

text: Many educational psychologists have shown that there is little evidence for the efficacy of most learning style models, and furthermore, that the models often rest on dubious theoretical grounds.[46][47] According to professor of education Steven Stahl, there has been an "utter failure to find that assessing children's learning styles and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning."[48] Professor of education Guy Claxton has questioned the extent that learning styles such as VARK are helpful, particularly as they can have a tendency to label children and therefore restrict learning.[49] Similarly, psychologist Kris Vasquez pointed out a number of problems with learning styles, including the lack of empirical evidence that learning styles are useful in producing student achievement, but also her more serious concern that the use of learning styles in the classroom could lead students to develop self-limiting implicit theories about themselves that could become self-fulfilling prophecies that are harmful, rather than beneficial, to the goal of serving student diversity.[6]

text: Psychologists Scott Lilienfeld, Barry Beyerstein, and colleagues listed as one of the "50 great myths of popular psychology" the idea that "students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles", and they summarized some relevant reasons not to believe this "myth".[18]

text: Critique made by Coffield et al.[edit]

text: A 2004 non-peer-reviewed literature review by authors from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne criticized most of the main instruments used to identify an individual's learning style.[1] In conducting the review, Frank Coffield and his colleagues selected 13 of the most influential models of the 71 models they identified,[1]:8–9 including most of the models cited on this page. They examined the theoretical origins and terms of each model, and the instrument that purported to assess individuals against the learning styles defined by the model. They analyzed the claims made by the author(s), external studies of these claims, and independent empirical evidence of the relationship between the learning style identified by the instrument and students' actual learning. Coffield's team found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research.

text: One of the most widely known theories assessed by Coffield's team was the learning styles model of Dunn and Dunn. This model is widely used in schools in the United States, and 177 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals referring to this model.[1]:20 The conclusion of Coffield and colleagues was: "Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model."[1]:35

text: Coffield's team claimed that another model, Anthony Gregorc's Gregorc Style Delineator, was "theoretically and psychometrically flawed" and "not suitable for the assessment of individuals".[1]:20

text: Critique of Kolb's model[edit]

text: Mark K. Smith compiled and reviewed some critiques of Kolb's model in his article, "David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning". According to Smith's research, there are six key issues regarding the model:

text:
The model doesn't adequately address the process of reflection;
The claims it makes about the four learning styles are extravagant;
It doesn't sufficiently address the fact of different cultural conditions and experiences;
The idea of stages/steps doesn't necessarily match reality;
It has only weak empirical evidence;
The relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more complex than Kolb draws it.[50]

text: It should be noted, however, that the most recent work by Kolb that Smith cites is from 2005, and he does not address the changes in the 2015 edition of Kolb's book Experiential Learning.[8]

text: Other critiques[edit]

text: Coffield and his colleagues and Mark Smith are not alone in their judgements. Demos, a UK think tank, published a report on learning styles prepared by a group chaired by David Hargreaves that included Usha Goswami from the University of Cambridge and David Wood from the University of Nottingham. The Demos report said that the evidence for learning styles was "highly variable", and that practitioners were "not by any means always frank about the evidence for their work".[51]:11

text: Cautioning against interpreting neuropsychological research as supporting the applicability of learning style theory, John Geake, Professor of Education at the UK's Oxford Brookes University, and a research collaborator with Oxford University's Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, commented: "We need to take extreme care when moving from the lab to the classroom. We do remember things visually and aurally, but information isn't defined by how it was received."[52]

text: The work of Daniel T. Willingham also holds true to the idea that there is not enough evidence to support a theory describing the differences in learning styles amongst students. In his book Why Don't Students Like School,[53] he claims that a cognitive styles theory must have three features: "it should consistently attribute to a person the same style, it should show that people with different abilities think and learn differently, and it should show that people with different styles do not, on average, differ in ability."[53][page needed] That being said, he concludes that there are no theories that have these three crucial characteristics, not necessarily implying that cognitive styles don't exist but rather stating that psychologists are unable to "find them".[53][page needed]

text: 2009 APS critique[edit]

text: In late 2009, the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) published a report on the scientific validity of learning styles practices.[4] The panel of experts that wrote the article, led by Harold Pashler of the University of California, San Diego, concluded that an adequate evaluation of the learning styles hypothesis—the idea that optimal learning demands that students receive instruction tailored to their learning styles—requires a particular kind of study. Specifically, students should be grouped into the learning style categories that are being evaluated (e.g., visual learners vs. verbal learners), and then students in each group must be randomly assigned to one of the learning methods (e.g., visual learning or verbal learning), so that some students will be "matched" and others will be "mismatched". At the end of the experiment, all students must sit for the same test. If the learning style hypothesis is correct, then, for example, visual learners should learn better with the visual method, whereas auditory learners should learn better with the auditory method. As disclosed in the report, the panel found that studies utilizing this essential research design were virtually absent from the learning styles literature. In fact, the panel was able to find only a few studies with this research design, and all but one of these studies were negative findings—that is, they found that the same learning method was superior for all kinds of students.[4] Examples of such negative findings include the research of Laura J. Massa and Richard E. Mayer,[54] as well as more recent research since the 2009 review.[2][55][56]

text: Furthermore, the panel noted that, even if the requisite finding were obtained, the benefits would need to be large, and not just statistically significant, before learning style interventions could be recommended as cost-effective. That is, the cost of evaluating and classifying students by their learning style, and then providing customized instruction would need to be more beneficial than other interventions (e.g., one-on-one tutoring, after school remediation programs, etc.).[4]:116–117

text: As a consequence, the panel concluded, "at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number."[4]:105

text: The article incited critical comments from some defenders of learning styles. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Robert Sternberg from Tufts University spoke out against the paper: "Several of the most-cited researchers on learning styles, Mr. Sternberg points out, do not appear in the paper's bibliography."[57] This charge was also discussed by Science, which reported that Pashler said, "Just so... most of [the evidence] is 'weak'."[58] The Chronicle reported that even David A. Kolb partly agreed with Pashler; Kolb said: "The paper correctly mentions the practical and ethical problems of sorting people into groups and labeling them. Tracking in education has a bad history."[57]


document_title: Tobias (surname)

question_text: where does the last name tobias come from

text: Tobias (surname)

text: The surname Tobias derives from the Greek form (Τοβίας) of the Hebrew male given name "Tovya" טוביה, meaning "God is good". In the Old Testament of the Bible, Tobias is the hero of the Book of Tobit who defeats a demon with archangel Raphael’s help.[1]

text: The surname Tobias may refer to the following people:

text:
Andrew Tobias (born 1947), American journalist and writer
Brian Tobias (born 1977), American Distribution Center Manager at Keurig
Channing Heggie Tobias (1882–1961), American civil rights activist
Charles Tobias (1898–1970), American songwriter
Cleverson de Alencar Tobias (born 1982), Brazilian football player
Errol Tobias (born 1950), South African rugby union player
Fred Tobias, American songwriter
George Tobias (1901–1980), American actor
Gert Tobias (born 1973), Romanian artist
Harry Tobias (1895–1994), American songwriter
Herbert Tobias (1924–1982), German photographer
Isabella Tobias (born 1991), American ice dancer
Jenny Kendall-Tobias (born 1967), British radio journalist
Jesse Tobias (born 1972), American guitarist
John Tobias (born 1969), American graphic artist and video game designer
Joshua Tobias (born 20th Century), American Filipino Nurse
Safiya Tobias (born 20th Century), African American Nurse with Filipino ties
Ken Tobias (born 1945), Canadian singer and songwriter
Manoel Tobias (born 1971), Brazilian futsal player
Marc Tobias, Venezuelan-American locksmith
Martin Tobias, American businessman
Michael Tobias (born 1951), American environmentalist and filmmaker
Murray Tobias (born 1939), Australian judge
Nataliya Tobias (born 1980), Ukrainian runner
Oliver Tobias (born 1947), British actor
Paul Tobias (born 1963), American guitarist
Pavel Tobiáš (born 1955), Czech football player and manager
Phillip V. Tobias (1925–2012), South African palaeoanthropologist
Randall L. Tobias (born 1942), former CEO of Eli Lilly and Company, and first United States Global AIDS Coordinator
Rudolf Tobias (1873–1918), Estonian composer
Seth Tobias (1963–2007), American businessman
Szidi Tobias (born 1967), Slovak actress and musician
Timothy J. Tobias (1952–2006), American composer
Todd Tobias (born 1967), American musician and record producer
Uwe Tobias (born 1973), Romanian artist
Diogo V. Tobias (born 1988), Brazilian racing driver


document_title: Twenty One Pilots discography

question_text: when was twenty one pilots self titled released

text: Twenty One Pilots discography

text: Albums[edit]

text: Studio albums[edit]

text:
List of studio albums, with selected chart positions

Title
Album details
Peak chart positions
Certifications
Sales

US
[5]
AUS
[6]
BEL
[7]
CAN
[8]
FIN
[9]
IRL
[10]
NLD
[11]
NZ
[12]
SWE
[13]
UK
[14]

Twenty One Pilots

Released: December 29, 2009[15]
Label: Self-released
Format: CD, DL

139
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

US: 115,000[16]

Regional at Best

Released: July 8, 2011[17]
Label: Self-released
Format: CD, DL

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

US: 3,000[16]

Vessel

Released: January 8, 2013[18]
Label: Fueled by Ramen (531792)
Format: CD, CS, DL, LP

21
51
95
29
49
24
53
16
[19]
60
39

RIAA: Platinum[20]
BPI: Gold[21]
MC: Gold[22]

US: 1,000,000

Blurryface

Released: May 19, 2015[23]
Label: Fueled by Ramen (548932)
Format: CD, CS, DL, LP

1
7
17
4
5
7
18
2
9
5

RIAA: 3× Platinum[20]
ARIA: Gold[24]
BPI: Platinum[21]
GLF: Gold[25]
MC: Platinum[26]
RMNZ: Platinum[27]

UK: 300,000[28]
US: 1,500,000[29]

"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

text: Live albums[edit]

text:
List of live albums

Title
Album details

Blurryface Live

Released: November 25, 2016[30]
Label: Fueled by Ramen
Format: LP

text: Extended plays[edit]

text:
List of extended plays

Title
Extended play details

Johnny Boy

Released: 2009[31][32]
Label: Self-released
Format: CD

Three Songs

Released: July 17, 2012[33]
Label: Fueled by Ramen
Format: CD, DL

Migraine

Released: June 14, 2013[34]
Label: Fueled by Ramen
Format: DL

Holding on to You

Released: August 16, 2013[35]
Label: Fueled by Ramen
Format: DL

Quiet Is Violent

Released: August 1, 2014[36]
Label: Fueled by Ramen (7567867179)
Format: CD, DL

The LC LP

Released: April 18, 2015[37]
Label: Fueled by Ramen (548230)
Format: 12" vinyl

Double Sided

Released: April 16, 2016[38]
Label: Fueled by Ramen (554232-7)
Format: 7" vinyl

TOPxMM (The Mutemath Sessions)

Released: December 19, 2016[39][40]
Label: Self-released
Format: DL

text: Singles[edit]

text:
List of singles, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name

Title
Year
Peak chart positions
Certifications
Album

US
[41]
US
Alt.
[42]
US
Rock
[43]
AUS
[6]
BEL
[7]
CAN
[44]
ITA
[45]
NZ
[12]
SWE
[13]
UK
[14]

"Holding on to You"
2012
—
10
33
—
—[a]
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Platinum[46]

Vessel

"Guns for Hands"
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Ode to Sleep"
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Migraine"
2013
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Lovely"
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

"House of Gold"
—
10
38
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Platinum[46]

"Fake You Out"
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

"Car Radio"[47]
2014
—[b]
28
20
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: 2× Platinum[46]

"Fairly Local"[23]
2015
84
—
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Platinum[46]

Blurryface

"Tear in My Heart"
82
2
6
60
—
88
—
—
—
—

RIAA: 2× Platinum[46]
MC: Gold[49]

"Lane Boy"
—
—
28
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Platinum[46]

"Stressed Out"
2
1
1
2
3
3
7
5
9
12

RIAA: 7× Platinum[46]
ARIA: 3× Platinum[50]
BEA: 2× Platinum[51]
BPI: Platinum[21]
FIMI: 3× Platinum[52]
GLF: 4× Platinum[25]
MC: 3× Platinum[53]
RMNZ: 2× Platinum[54]

"Ride"
2016
5
1
1
18
7
13
23
10
50
47

RIAA: 4× Platinum[46]
ARIA: Platinum[55]
BEA: Platinum[56]
BPI: Gold[21]
FIMI: 3× Platinum[52]
GLF: Platinum[25]
MC: Gold[57]
RMNZ: Gold[58]

"Heathens"
2
1
1
3
10
3
11
2
6
5

RIAA: 5× Platinum[46]
ARIA: 2× Platinum[59]
BEA: Platinum[56]
BPI: Platinum[21]
FIMI: 3× Platinum[52]
MC: 2× Platinum[57]
RMNZ: Platinum[60]

Suicide Squad: The Album

"Heavydirtysoul"
—[c]
2
8
—
42
—
—
—
—
—

RIAA: Platinum[46]

Blurryface

"—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory.

text: Promotional singles[edit]

text:
List of promotional singles, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name

Title
Year
Peak chart positions
Album

US
[41]
US
Rock
[43]
AUS
[6]
CAN
[44]
NZ
[12]
UK
[14]

"Cancer"
2016
91
6
53
75
—[d]
93
Rock Sound Presents: The Black Parade

text: Other charted songs[edit]

text:
List of songs, with selected chart positions, showing year released and album name

Title
Year
Peak chart positions
Certifications
Album

US
Rock
[43]

"Polarize"
2015
31

RIAA: Gold[46]

Blurryface

"The Judge"
32

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Doubt"
32

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Message Man"
35

RIAA: Gold[46]

"We Don't Believe What's on TV"
39

RIAA: Gold[46]

"Goner"
37

RIAA: Gold[46]

text: Covers[edit]

text:
List of cover music videos, showing year released and directors

Title
Year
Original artist
Director(s)
Ref.

"Jar of Hearts"
2010
Christina Perri
Mark C. Eshleman
[62]

"Can't Help Falling in Love"
2012
Elvis Presley
[63]

"Mad World"
2014
Tears for Fears
[64]

"Cancer"
2016
My Chemical Romance
Tantrum Content
[65]

text: Music videos[edit]

text:
List of music videos, showing year released and directors

Title
Year
Director(s)
Ref.

"Goner"
2012
Mark C. Eshleman
[66]

"Holding on to You"
Jordan Bahat
[67]

"House of Gold"
Mark C. Eshleman
[68]

"Guns for Hands"
2013
[69]

"Car Radio"
[70]

"Lovely"
[71]

"House of Gold"
Warren Kommers
[72]

"Migraine"
Mark C. Eshleman
[e][73]

"Truce"
[74]

"Ode to Sleep"
2014
[75]

"Fairly Local"
2015
[76]

"Tear in My Heart"
Marc Klasfeld
[77]

"Stressed Out"
Mark C. Eshleman
[78]

"Lane Boy"
[79]

"Ride"
[80]

"Heathens"
2016
Andrew Donoho
[81]

"Heavydirtysoul"
2017
[82]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ "Holding on to You" did not enter the Flemish Ultratop chart, but peaked at number 27 on the Ultratip chart.[7]
Jump up ^ "Car Radio" did not enter the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number 15 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart.[48]
Jump up ^ "Heavydirtysoul" did not enter the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number 25 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart.[48]
Jump up ^ "Cancer" did not enter the NZ Top 40 Singles Chart, but peaked at number one on the NZ Heatseekers Singles Chart.[61]
Jump up ^ The music video for "Migraine" is no longer available. The link provided is for the UK version.


document_title: Connecticut Compromise

question_text: . who created the plan that became know as the great compromise

text: Connecticut Compromise

text: Context[edit]

text: On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation proposed the creation of a bicameral legislature. Under his proposal, membership in both houses would be allocated to each state proportional to its population; however, candidates for the lower house would be nominated and elected by the people of each state. This proposal allowed fairness and equality to the people. Candidates for the upper house would be nominated by the state legislatures of each state and then elected by the members of the lower house. This proposal was known as the Virginia Plan.

text: Less populous states like Delaware were afraid that such an arrangement would result in their voices and interests being drowned out by the larger states. Many delegates also felt that the Convention did not have the authority to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation,[1] as the Virginia Plan would have.[2] In response, on June 15, 1787, William Paterson of the New Jersey delegation proposed a legislature consisting of a single house. Each state was to have equal representation in this body, regardless of population. The New Jersey Plan, as it was called, would have left the Articles of Confederation in place, but would have amended them to somewhat increase Congress's powers.[3]

text: At the time of the convention, the South was growing more quickly than the North, and Southern states had the most extensive Western claims. South Carolina, North Carolina, and the State of Georgia were small in the 1780s, but they expected growth, and thus favored proportional representation. New York State was one of the largest states at the time, but two of its three representatives (Alexander Hamilton being the exception) supported an equal representation per state, as part of their desire to see maximum autonomy for the states. (The two representatives other than Hamilton had left the convention before the representation issue was resolved, leaving Hamilton, and New York State, without a vote.)

text: James Madison and Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional representation group. Madison argued that a conspiracy of large states against the small states was unrealistic as the large states were so different from each other. Hamilton argued that the states were artificial entities made up of individuals, and accused small state representatives of wanting power, not liberty (see History of the United States Senate).

text: For their part, the small state representatives argued that the states were, in fact, of a legally equal status, and that proportional representation would be unfair to their states. Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened on behalf of the small states, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."

text: Elbridge Gerry ridiculed the small states’ claim of sovereignty, saying “that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.”[4]

text: The Compromise[edit]

text: This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: this section is disorganized and repetitive, stating the same information multiple times in different orders so it is difficult to understand the actual sequence of events Please help improve this section if you can. (May 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: On June 14, when the Convention was ready to consider the report on the Virginia plan, William Paterson of New Jersey requested an adjournment to allow certain delegations more time to prepare a substitute plan. The request was granted, and, on the next day, Paterson submitted nine resolutions embodying necessary amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which was followed by a vigorous debate. On June 19, the delegates rejected the New Jersey Plan and voted to proceed with a discussion of the Virginia Plan. The small States became increasingly discontented, and some threatened to withdraw. On July 2, the Convention was deadlocked over giving each State an equal vote in the upper house, with five States in the affirmative, five in the negative, and one divided.

text: The problem was referred to a committee consisting of one delegate from each State to reach a compromise. On July 5, the committee submitted its report, which became the basis for the “Great Compromise" of the Convention. The report recommended that in the upper house each State should have an equal vote and in the lower house, each State should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants,[5] counting slaves as three-fifths of an inhabitant,[5] and that money bills should originate in the lower house (not subject to amendment by the upper chamber).

text: After six weeks of turmoil, North Carolina switched its vote to equal representation per state and Massachusetts abstained, and a compromise was reached, being called the "Great Compromise." In the "Great Compromise," every state was given equal representation, previously known as the New Jersey Plan, in one house of Congress, and proportional representation, known before as the Virginia Plan, in the other. Because it was considered more responsive to majority sentiment, the House of Representatives was given the power to originate all legislation dealing with the federal budget and revenues/taxation, per the Origination Clause.

text: Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, created a compromise that, in a sense, blended the Virginia (large-state) and New Jersey (small-state) proposals regarding congressional apportionment. Ultimately, however, its main contribution was in determining the apportionment of the Senate. Sherman sided with the two-house national legislature of the Virginia Plan but proposed "That the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. Branch [house] should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more."[6] Although Sherman was well liked and respected among the delegates, his plan failed at first. It was not until July 23 that representation was finally settled.[6]

text: What was ultimately included in the constitution was a modified form of this plan, partly because the larger states disliked it. In committee, Benjamin Franklin modified Sherman's proposal to make it more acceptable to the larger states. He added the requirement that revenue bills originate in the house.

text: The final vote on the Connecticut Compromise on July 16th left the Senate looking to the Confederation Congress. In the preceding weeks of debate, James Madison of Virginia, Rufus King of New York, and Gouverneur Morris of New York each vigorously opposed the compromise for this reason.[7] For the nationalists, the Convention’s vote for the compromise was a stunning defeat. However, on July 23, they found a way to salvage their vision of an elite, independent Senate. Just before most of the convention’s work was referred to the Committee of Detail, Gouverneur Morris and Rufus King moved that state's members in the Senate be given individual votes, rather than voting en bloc, as they had in the Confederation Congress. Then Oliver Ellsworth, a leading proponent of the Connecticut Compromise, supported their motion, and the Convention adopted the Compromise.[8] Since the Convention had early acquiesced in the Virginia Plan’s proposal that senators have long terms, restoring that Plan’s vision of individually powerful senators stopped the Senate from becoming a strong safeguard of federalism. State governments lost their direct say in Congress’s decisions to make national laws. As the personally influential senators received terms much longer than the state legislators who elected them, they became substantially independent. The compromise continued to serve the self-interests of small-state political leaders, who were assured of access to more seats in the Senate than they might otherwise have obtained.[9]

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: Senate representation was explicitly protected in Article Five of the United States Constitution:

text: ...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[10]

text: This agreement allowed deliberations to continue and thus led to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which further complicated the issue of popular representation in the House.


document_title: Drive (golf)

question_text: who has the longest golf drive in history

text: Drive (golf)

text: In golf stroke mechanics, a drive, also known as a tee shot, is a long-distance shot played from the tee box, intended to move the ball a great distance down the fairway towards the green.

text: Longest drives[edit]

text: An average professional male golfer is capable of hitting a drive using a 1 wood over 300 yards, maximizing power by driving the legs and hips and the body weight into the swing. Some of the biggest hitters on the PGA Tour such as Bubba Watson, Robert Garrigus, John Daly and Dustin Johnson at very best are capable of driving a ball over 350 yards,[1] although very rare in professional play, but regularly hit drives of over 300 yards.

text: The top 115 longest hitters on the tour in 2017 averaged a drive of 290 yards or over.[2] Some of the biggest hitters on the female tour such as Maude-Aimee Leblanc average just below 280 yards.[3] As of 2011, Watson has the longest average drive in professional golf, with an average drive of 315.2 yards,[2] capable of generating a ball speed of 194 mph and drives of up to 370 yards.[1]

text: Mike Austin holds the world record for the longest drive in professional play, driving 515 yards at the Winterwood Golf Course in Las Vegas, Nevada in 1974, blasting it 65 yards past the flag on the par-4 fifth.[4] His golf swing, known as The Mike Austin Swing, is practiced and taught by current golf professionals. Other notable swings are Ben Hogan's swing, Jim Furyk's swing and Tiger Woods' swing.

text: Golf driving is big business in the United States and golf driving instruction is a multimillion-dollar business with many manuals and instructors offering their expertise to maximize the drives of their consumers.

text: According to professionals, flexibility, technique and form are very important in a drive. A flexible player is able to generate a longer drive by having the ability to swing with a wider arc, creating more thrust. Some of the world's longest drivers who are not professional golfers but compete in Long Drive contests such as the RE/MAX World Long Drive Championship, such as Jamie Sadlowski and Mike Dobbyn, are capable of regularly hitting a ball over 400 yards and over 220 mph.[1]

text: Two time World Long Drive champion Sadlowski is of average height and slight of build but is able to generate lengths of up to 445 yards far beyond those of some of the more powerfully built professional golfers because of his unique flexibility and leanness of build.[5] Motion Golf, a company that creates sophisticated 3-D swing animations of players, has deduced that in his swing he rotates his shoulder 166 degrees, but his hips move only 49 degrees; Tiger Woods averages around 85 degrees in comparison. He claims that the secret behind his usually long drive is to "Think swing fast, not hard."[5]

text: However, the world record holder, Mike Dobbyn, whose longest drive is a world record 551 yards, is 6'8" and a muscular 310 pounds, implying that raw power is also very important, particularly in the left shoulder and right pectoral (for a right-handed golfer) and in the twitch muscles on the left side.[6] Several of the past RE/MAX winners such as Sweden's Viktor Johansson have also been at least 6'5" and near 300 pounds and five time winner Jason Zuback was an amateur powerlifter.

text: In February 1971, astronaut Alan Shepard became the first person to golf anywhere other than Earth. He smuggled a golf club and two golf balls on board Apollo 14 with the intent to golf on the Moon. He attempted two drives. He shanked the first attempt, but it is estimated his second went more than 200 yards.[7]

text: Hole in one[edit]

text: Given the length of par 4s, generally being over 400 yards, and beyond the maximum driving distance of virtually all players, most holes in one are achieved on par-3 holes for eagle. Given that most par 3s are relatively short, most holes in one are achieved with mid-lower irons rather than drivers.